alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### The Honorable Elsijane Trimble Roy, United States Distric t 1 

### Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. ___________ No. 95-2108

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. John Lawrence Drennan, Jr., * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: April 4, 1996 Filed: April 22, 1996

___________ Before FAGG, BOWMAN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Jo hn L. Drennan, Jr., appeals from the district court's orde r 1 imposing a ten-month term of imprisonment upon revocation of his supervise d release. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a b rief pursuant to Anders v. Cal ifornia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising as issues whether the distric t court sentenced Drennan within the applicable range and whether th e district court abused its discretion in imposing the ten-month sentence.

We concl ude Drennan was sentenced within the proper range, and th e record convinces us that the district court considered and applied th e pertinent statutory and Sentencing Guidelines provisions. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); U.S.S.G. §§ 7B1.1(a)(3),

### -2-

7B1 .4(a). We also conclude that the district court did not abuse it s discretion in imposin g the sentence. See United States v. Smeathers , 930 F.2 d 18, 18-19 (8th Cir. 1991) (per curiam); United States v. Graves , 91 4 F.2d 159, 161 (8th Cir. 1990) (per curiam). In acc ordance with Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we hav e reviewed the record and have found no other nonfrivolous issues for appeal . Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
July 23, 2015

Mr. Bruce D. Taylor

4501 Shadycreek Lane

Colleyville, TX 76034

Dear Mr. Taylor:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your 

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your May 11, 2015 exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-

1556), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does

not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request 

any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                    0000032621
<NAME>                   EMERSON RADIO CORP.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000
<CURRENCY>                                     US

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                            8,539
<SECURITIES>                                         37
<RECEIVABLES>                                     8,783
<ALLOWANCES>                                      3,977
<INVENTORY>                                      14,384
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 34,396
<PP&E>                                            1,034
<DEPRECIATION>                                    3,402
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   57,996
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            24,542
<BONDS>                                          20,750
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                       3,310
<COMMON>                                            513
<OTHER-SE>                                        8,740
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     57,996
<SALES>                                         201,813
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                204,956
<CGS>                                           178,125
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   178,125
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 21,438
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     59
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                2,284
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   3,043
<INCOME-TAX>                                       (577)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               3,620
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                      3,620
<EPS-BASIC>                                         .07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       .07



</TABLE>
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 357

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION IV

No. CR-13-1022

ROY LEE RUSSELL

APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

Opinion Delivered June 4, 2014

APPEAL FROM THE DESHA

COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

[NO. CR2012-10-1]

HONORABLE SAM POPE, JUDGE

AFFIRMED

DAVID M. GLOVER, Judge

Roy Lee Russell was charged by criminal information in Desha County Circuit Court

with three counts of kidnapping, one count of aggravated assault, three counts of rape, one

count of second-degree battery, and one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. A

jury acquitted Russell of all counts except the second-degree-battery charge and being a felon

in possession of a firearm. Russell was sentenced as a habitual offender to fifteen years in

prison and fined $10,000 for the second-degree-battery conviction; he was sentenced to forty

years in prison and fined $15,000 for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The sentences

were ordered to be served consecutively. Russell now appeals, arguing that there was

insufficient evidence to convict him of second-degree battery and being a felon in possession

of a firearm when the jury acquitted him of aggravated assault, a charge that arose out of the

same set of facts and circumstances. We affirm.

Russell frames his argument as a sufficiency argument; however, it is not a sufficiency
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 357

argument—it is an inconsistent-verdict argument. He asserts that his convictions for seconddegree battery and felon in possession of a firearm cannot stand because the jury did not also

convict him of aggravated assault. This argument was never made to the circuit court;

therefore, it is not preserved for appellate review. Fletcher v. State, 2014 Ark. App. 50 (holding

that appellant’s inconsistent-verdict argument was not preserved for appellate review when

that argument was never made to the circuit court after the jury returned its verdict or in a

post-trial motion). Even if this argument had been preserved, we would affirm. “A jury may

convict on some counts but not on others, and may convict in different degrees on some

counts, because of compassion or compromise, and not solely because there was insufficient

evidence of guilt.” Jordan v. State, 323 Ark. 628, 631, 917 S.W.2d 164, 165 (1996). “The

law is clear in that ‘a defendant may not attack his conviction on one count because it is

inconsistent with an acquittal on another count. Res judicata concepts are not applicable to

inconsistent verdicts; the jury is free to exercise its historic power of lenity if it believes that

a conviction on one count would provide sufficient punishment.’” Id. (quoting McVay v.

State, 312 Ark. 73, 77, 847 S.W.2d 28, 30 (1993)).

Affirmed.

GRUBER and WHITEAKER, JJ., agree. 

Joseph P. Mazzanti, III, for appellant.

Dustin McDaniel, Att’y Gen., by: LeaAnn J. Adams, Ass’t Att’y Gen., and Richmond

Giles, Law Student Admitted to Practice Pursuant to Rule XV of the Rules Governing

Admission to the Bar of the Supreme Court under the supervision of Darnisa Evans Johnson,

Deputy Att’y Gen., for appellee.

2
Order entered October 3, 2018

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-01136-CV

IN RE JARON NOTTER, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 59th Judicial District Court

Grayson County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 18-W000124

ORDER

Before Justices Lang, Myers, and Whitehill

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DENY relator’s petition for writ of 

mandamus. We ORDER relator to bear the costs, if any, of this original proceeding.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
Exhibit 10.2


 


Contract Agreement


 


 


Agreement name: Liaoning North-West Water
Supply Project To Deliver Butterfly Valve (biding document 1)


Agreement Code: LXB-SG-002-Z0500


 


In order to implement biding document 1
with respect to purchase of butterfly valve for Liaoning North-West Water Supply Project , Liaoning North-West Water Supply Ltd
(“Purchaser”) accepted Liaoning Nengfa Weiye Energy Technology Ltd (“Seller” ) as the bid winner. Both
of Parties came to following agreement :


 


1. This contract agreement
is consisted of agreement and following documents:


 


(1) Contract Agreement
( including supplemental agreement )


(2) Biding Notify


(3) Summary of negotiated
contract


(4) Bid Letter


(5) The biding documents
to clarify and the revised NO.01-02 Notify.


(6) Term and Condition
of agreement


(7) Technical standard
and requirement ( Technical term of contract)


(8) Price list of bid


(9) Material provided
by purchaser


(10) Other documents
entered into the contract recognized by parities


 


2. The mentioned documents
may be complementary and explanation mutually. If it have not clear or discrepancy, a prior order as agreed in the contract shall
prevail.


 


3. The price of signed
contract : RMB: 36,596,040


 


4. The quality of equipment
meets technical standard and requirement


 


5. Seller guaranteed
that the design , manufacture ,test and trial , parcel and deliver with respect to hydraulic control butterfly valves and its accessories,
valve operating system , spare part and special tool which would be completed according to term of agreement. ( deliver spot would
be located at installed spot, unload is responsible by purchaser). Acceptance : provided necessary drawings and material, provided
technical guidance and supervision services and other after-sales service regarding equipment installation, commissioning,testing
and acceptance; accepted representative participate in the factory supervision, testing and acceptance and responsible for quality
of works mentioned above.


 


6. Deliver date guaranteed
by seller is between 1 July 2014 to 31 January 2015.


 


7. The purchaser guaranteed
that the payment would be completed according to condition, schedule raised by the agreement.


 


8. There are eight copies
of this agreement, including two copies of the original contract , both sides each hold one copy, six copies , with three copies
of each pair of main contract.


 


9. In contract, both
parties sign compensatory agreement separately, the supplementary agreement is part of the contract.


 


10. This contract will
come into force after signed and stamped by parties and the purchaser accepts letter submitted by the buyer.


 






    	 



    	 



    

 


Liaoning Nengfa Weiye
Energy Technology Ltd.


 


Purchaser: Liaoning North-West Water Supply
Ltd Seller:Liaoning Nengfa Weiye Energy Technology Ltd.


 


The legal representative: Dawu Zhang             The
legal representative: Lihua Wang.


 


 


Signed date: 12 March,
2014
AMPS DoD Vendor Registration 

After typing https://amps.dla.mil into your browser, there is a small chance you will be prompted for a 

certificate. If this occurs, hit the Cancel button.

Click the “First Time User? Click Here to Register” Link:

Under “User Type” click the “Supplier/Vendor” button
AMPS DoD Vendor Registration

Click the “New Account” button, and “Continue” past the Privacy Act Statement:

Complete all required User Information fields (indicated by *). Click the “Continue” button when finished.
AMPS DoD Vendor Registration

Create a password (minimum 15 chars) that meets the specified password criteria. Click “Continue” when 

finished:

Complete the three Authentication Questions. Click “Continue” when finished:
AMPS DoD Vendor Registration

You will receive a confirmation screen indicating your name and User ID. Click the “Leave AMPS Registration” 

link to exit AMPS. You will receive a confirmation email once the account has been created.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 1 1 028 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

KEVIN DEMOND MEACHEM ,
Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:11

- CR

- 26

- 1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Kevin Demond
Meachem has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance
with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Meachem h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED October 2 2 , 2015

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-11028 Document: 00513241771 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/22/2015No. 14

- 1 1 028

2 issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the
APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 14-11028 Document: 00513241771 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/22/2015
#### Jacob J. Briggs, Jr, et al., Appellants, v Rhinebeck Central School District et al., Respondents.

[767 NYS2d 786]—

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Hillery, J.), dated October 31, 2002, which granted the motion of the defendants Rhinebeck Central School District and Board of Education of Rhinebeck Central School District for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, and the separate motion of the defendant Board of Cooperative Educational Services of Dutchess County for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The separate motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against each of the defendants were properly granted. It was not reasonably foreseeable that the actions complained of by the plaintiffs, i.e, allowing the then 17-year-old infant plaintiff to leave the defendants’ premises in the automobile of a fellow student who possessed a driver’s license, would have resulted in his being injured in an automobile collision *(see Di Ponzio v Riordan,*89 NY2d 578, 583-584 [1997]; *Hanley v East Moriches Union Free School Dist. II,*275 AD2d 389 [2000]; *Hurlburt v Noxon,*149 Misc 2d 374 [1990]; *Palella v Ulmer,*136 Misc 2d 34 [1987]). Ritter, J.P., Florio, S. Miller and H. Miller, JJ., concur.
No. 10-323.

#### United States, Petitioner v. Joshua Huckabee.

562 U.S. 1056, 131 S. Ct. 648,

178 L. Ed. 2d 471,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9127.

November 29, 2010.

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Petition for writ of certiorari granted. Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for further consideration in light of Abbott v. United States, 562 U.S. 8, 131 S. Ct. 18, 178 L. Ed. 2d 348 (2010).

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Same case below, 380 Fed. Appx. 101.
SMOKING CAN LEAD TO LOTS OF 

BROKEN HEARTS—YOURS INCLUDED.

Every cigarette smoked causes immediate damage to a body—severely 

increasing the possibility of a heart attack or stroke. But what does that really 

mean? To help understand the real effects of smoking, the Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention (CDC) has asked real former smokers to share their 

stories.

Mariano was 47 when he woke up feeling dizzy and sick. 

He went to his doctor, on the verge of having a heart attack. 

“He told me, ‘You have a very big problem with your arteries.’” 

Three days later, Mariano had open-heart surgery. He didn’t 

realize the damage years of smoking was having on his 

health. “The open-heart surgery I had in 2004 was brutal,” 

he recalls. Mariano says he is paying the price for smoking, 

having to constantly monitor his health and take medications 

the rest of his life.

Free quitting services are just a call away.

Suzy came from a family of smokers. “My mother, father, 

grandparents—the whole family did it,” she says. So it wasn’t 

unusual, when she began sneaking cigarettes at age 15. By 

age 57, Suzy suffered a stroke, which doctors linked to her 

years of smoking. The stroke caused partial paralysis and 

problems with her speech and eyes. It also cost Suzy her 

independence. Now 62, she relies on her son Daniel as her 

caregiver. “I need someone to help wash and dress me, to 

help me to the bathroom.”

Roosevelt started experimenting with cigarettes in his teens. 

At 45, Roosevelt had a heart attack that landed him in the 

hospital for a month. To repair the damage, doctors inserted 

stents into his heart. When that wasn’t enough, he had bypass 

surgery—six bypasses in all. “I wish I never smoked,” he says. 

“Everybody thinks health problems won’t happen to them, but 

they happen to so many people. You could be next.”

Call the free ASQ Korean Language Smoking Cessation Center now and receive 

free quitting services in Korean. Double your chances of quitting successfully 

with one-on-one advice over the phone, a free starter kit of nicotine patches, and 

self-help quitting materials to begin your first step of breaking smoking addiction.

FREE ASQ KOREAN LANGUAGE 

SMOKING CESSATION CENTER

1-800-556-5564

DON’T WAIT FOR 

OPEN HEART 

SURGERY TO STOP 

SMOKING.

- Mariano, Age 55

DO YOUR 

HEART A 

FAVOR. QUIT 

SMOKING.

- Roosevelt, Age 45

AFTER A STROKE 

FROM SMOKING, 

GET USED TO 

LOSING YOUR 

INDEPENDENCE.

- Suzy, Age 62

NICOTINE

PATCHES

FREE
Exhibit 32.1


                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                       AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report  of Sunburst Acquisitions VIII, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form  10-QSB for the period ending  Mar. 31, 2004   (the
"Report"), I,  Michael R. Quinn, Principal Executive Officer  and  Principal
Financial  Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to  18  U.S.C.  Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of  2002,
that:

1) The Report fully complies with the requirement of Section 13(a) or 15 (d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2) The information contained in the  Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the Company's financial position and results of operations.



/s/ Michael R. Quinn

-----------------------
Principal Executive Officer
Principal Financial Officer
November 12, 2004
<pre>
EXHIBIT 31.1
CERTIFICATIONS

Certification Of The Chief Executive Officer Pursuant To Section
302 of the Sarbanes - Oxley Act of 2002.

I, Floyd D. Wilkenson, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly report on Form 10Q-SB, as amended,
of Ludlum Construction Co., Inc..

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain
any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material
fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report; and
financial records available this date.

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this annual report, fairly
present in all material respects the financial condition, results
of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the
periods presented in this quarterly report.

																	/s/    FLOYD D. WILKENSON
					                        -------------------------
																	Floyd D. Wilkenson
																	Authorized Agent/Sole Director
			        										Appointed by Board of Directors on
                                	March 19, 2004


Dated: November 17, 2004


Certification Of The Chief Financial Officer Pursuant To
Section 302 Of The Sarbanes - Oxley Act Of 2002

I, Floyd D. Wilkenson, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10 Q-SB, as
amended, of Ludlum Construction Co., Inc.

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain
any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material
fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report.

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this quarterly report,
fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of,
and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report.

																	/s/    FLOYD D. WILKENSON
					                        -------------------------
																	Floyd D. Wilkenson
																	Authorized Agent/Sole Director
			        										Appointed by Board of Directors on
                                	March 19, 2004


Dated: November 17, 2004